Christians, Republicans cannot appeal to leftists with leftward drift

Beware prevailing wisdom because it’s rarely wisdom. The reason it is prevailing is that there’s an urgent need to make it official, because it won’t actually last.

What’s happening is that people are using it to draw attention to themselves, because it’s the trend of the moment, which makes them de facto temporary sociopaths who have put truth and the best interests of their subject secondary to their own enrichment. This is a common human failing.

The prevailing wisdom among the Republican party and the Christian faith is that “new converts” can be made by approaching the Other Side with a hybrid of its beliefs and your own.

Eternal wisdom says instead that doing so is suicide.

Think it through: the Other Side disagree with what makes you what you are. They already have what they are. If you mix the two, you offer them an additional burden (what you are) in addition to an adulterated form of what they want (what they are).

Churches incorporate rock music, drift leftward and endorse liberal issues, and try to essentially be secular and liberal instead of mystical and conservative.

But at that point, they’re dead in the water. I can get secular and liberal from McDonald’s or Obama, without the burden of having to think about morality and my soul. Pass the fries.

In the same way, the more the Republicans have drifted leftward in order to “reach the young,” the more it has lost the people who are its bedrock: 20-and-30-something families that are interested in building prosperous lives for themselves.

By appealing to the “new” audience, the Republicans and Christians signal to their faithful that they are being abandoned. In addition, the new audience will never buy it, because they already have what they want with fewer obligations.

Even more troubling is that by reversing your position, or appearing to while hiding it behind your back, is to signal that you are dishonest. It’s the equivalent of saying “just kidding” or performing a bait-and-switch sales job, and is recognizably dishonest from a distance.

A Republican party that offers gay marriage and welfare is in effect cloning the platform of the democratic party, thus makes itself irrelevant to people who vote Republican while offering nothing new to Democratic voters, who already have Democrats.

In the same way, turning a church service into a rock concert fails because it drives away those who are fleeing the madness and want something for the whole family to enjoy, while failing to attract those who’d rather just go to a rock concert — there’s no message of troubling transcendence of individualism there.

The mindset of Democracy — pandering, manipulation, deception and flattery — is anathema to any conservative. It’s easy to see through and seems ridiculous at its core. However, because they don’t understand it, Republicans and Christians bungle it.

What they need is to realize why people like them in the first place, and to unite all of those people on what they like and use that as a weapon against the masses. We don’t want to take over; we want a place for our people (think: Moses).

People like religion because it is the antithesis to valueless, material, I’m-OK-you’re-OK society. Religion says there is a reason to live a moral life and that it offers a reward of peace of soul.

People like Republicans because they offer solid functionality and a family-oriented values system. This includes facing hard truths like the fact that world peace will never exist, war and poverty will always be with us, and that the best thing to do is salvage the good and push away the bad.

These are not simplistic moral systems. For simplistic moral systems, try the “there is no truth, everything is OK, there are no consequences” of egalitarian progressivism.

However these are comprehensive worldviews. They cut through the chatter and chaos, and give people a reason to live as their instinct says they should. This is the audience to whom Republicans and Christians should appeal.

The data back up this statement, since everywhere the prevailing wisdom takes over, Republicans and Christians pander, and lose out because liberals already have everything they want in liberalism. Thus the numbers decline.

Conservatives need to accept that we are the underdogs in this fight, and to stick together on the basis of what we agree on, not what we wish we could believe in order to be popular with the deranged masses.

Surely Christianity is not a wise choice for Conseratives looking for a guide. It at least implies that humans are God’s ultimate creation, the most important thing in the universe. That only encourages individualistic behaviours mostly it seems, aside from popular acts of pandering morality. We should promote adopting a humble attitude to our position in the cosmos alongside celebrating all that is good about our species.

Christianity is, I’m afraid, a dead duck.
It got things wrong for so long that there is no way back for it.
This is not such a bad thing: everything has its time. It is in the process of becoming history, while something subtly different is rising to replace it.
Reality.

I don’t know why anyone would want to appeal to anyone.
Well, I suppose I do, but being appealing is something a youth does when he is unsure of what he is or how to be.
It has nothing to do with reality. Or maturity.
I am what I am. You are what you are. If we have something in common, we can explore it. If not, there’s not really much to discuss, unless debating is your thing. And that isn’t about having anything in common.

When society came first, and there was something about society to subscribe to, everybody had something in common. Or religion, or culture, or a common set of beliefs.
Now almost nobody believes in anything, subscribes to anything, puts anything other than themselves first.
Therefore appealing to anyone is hardly likely to bear fruit.

Most of us, here, have something in common. That is why we are here.
We got here by ourselves, because we were looking for others who had something in common with us. Nobody appealed to us to read what was here. We, ourselves, wanted to read it.

I’m not a Christian but I study the Bible several times a week, looking for what’s rich and has my culture in it. I’ve also made an extensive study of the Jefferson Bible, which if you haven’t heard of it, is Thomas Jefferson’ redaction of the gospels, eliminating the faith-based miracle stuff. He called it “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” Jefferson characterized Jesus’ mission as having failed, with him being killed with still a lot left to say.

The first thing Jesus taught was that laws are there to serve us, not us to serve the laws. He started his mission because his teacher, John the Baptist was killed for speaking the truth. He taught about reaching people who were ready to hear, and that forgiving your brother was much more important than putting in a good donation to the local church, and that you have to forgive. And you have to give of more than you might feel comfortable giving.

I was impressed with the beatitudes–that it’s good for you to mourn and feel poor, because if you don’t, you can’t feel what really matters.

I think this message is hard enough to live out, much less having to espouse this and that creed, and that you have to believe Jesus was the Christ or you’re going to hell. That just makes me sick. What Jesus taught is what saves, but I refuse to say it’s necessary to believe any particular thing about Jesus.

I’ve been to a lot of churches and found that the best ones require a lot of their followers. The worst ones have been off-message for a long time. The best ones really help their followers straighten out their hearts and minds, through clarity and discipline. Unfortunately, those good churches are not something I can get into because I’m not a joiner. But I respect them immensely.

I don’t see much that the three big Middle Eastern monotheistic religions have done for any world culture that was exclusively thier own. I know that they have had an impact on European Civilisation but they also took and rebranded Pagan symbols and merged with Pagan ideas. Some parts of England and elsewhere reverted to Paganism or were stubborn after the missionaries left untill the church was established to keep folk from straying from worshipping the Pop Idol Yahweh and his alter ego sales rep Jesus at the expense of what was great lore and kinship with the rhythums of Nature.

I do however love to walk into a local church here in England and imagine the folk who came here, what they thought,how they talked and what their day to day lives were like. I cannot deny that part of my heritage. At least in the countryside where i live, history is in the lanes, fields, hedgerows and very animals around you.

The reason the liberal MUST DENY either the existence of Jesus Christ outright or MUST DENY that Jesus Christ was God incarnate is that Jesus Christ IS empirical evidence of objective Supremacy (I know that’s redundant), i.e., PHYSICAL/material evidence of the supreme Man.

AT THE VERY SAME TIME, we see the various liberal ideologues attempting to “perfect man” through their endless stream of socially constructed machinations.

So whereas Christianity asserts that only one man shall be perfect and represent objective Supremacy, the radical liberal attempts to perfect ALL men while denying that objective Supremacy even exists.

Twisted and self-refuting.

Thus, in the liberal formulation….

white Supremacist = white degenerate. AN OBVIOUS FALLACY!

In reality, the white Supremacist is a devout white Christian. He is a believer in objective Supremacy AND understands that there is only one perfect man. He is the anti-liberal.

All true liberals MUST eventually make war on Christianity and Christ, himself.

You must disabuse yourself of the radical liberationist’s definition of “white Supremacy.”

A does not equal B.

White Supremacy does not equal white degeneracy. This is the radical liberal’s formulation. It is a self-evident fallacy. To embrace this “equalization,” one must literally believe that Supremacy equals degeneracy.

Probe deep into that monstrously diabolical deception.

So much in your writings indicate an intimate understanding of radical liberation and its inherent destructiveness.

So if you are a healthy-minded white man, i.e., an illiberal white man (I am assuming you are) then you are a “white supremacist” (read: racist, sexist, homophobe, hater, bigot, etc.) whether you acknowledge this or not.

You may deny the identity, but you cannot deny the perception held by the radical liberal. And you cannot deny what the radical liberationist is seeking to destroy. YOU, of course! Healthy-minded white man.

Your beliefs has you standing outside of the liberal paradigm. You reek of exclusion, separation and segregation. You seem to be attempting to transcend your fellow liberal. This is not tolerable. This won’t be accepted by the radical liberationists all around you.

Do you BELIEVE in objective Supremacy or not?

Or, are you simply self-confined to a liberal paradigm which renders all notions of “supremacy” as subjectively absurd and sets us all on a path towards total “equalization?”

No offense but you did what I just call the “crazy person keyword trigger” where said crazy person ignores whatever content the original article/subsequent replies contains, and just use tangential relevancy as a diving board into ranting.

You’re basically picking the wrong target because Brett is made of ideological adamantium.

Too answer your question

1) The universe tends towards transcending whatever plane it’s currently on; energy to matter, matter to stars and stuff, stars and stuff to planets, weather systems, life, evolution, etc etc etc. If the universe has an underlying goal it is to transcend itself. I don’t know why, it just does. For such a thing to exist just because is a good enough reason to believe in an omnipresent God.

2) Objectively defined supremacy is a philosophical knot because you cannot measure transcendental quality using objective quantity. If we equate transcendence as defined in point 1) as being our criteria for supremacy, which is an assertion on my part, then it is impossible to produce objective criteria for supremacy because you cannot quantify transcendence?

Your only answer is to say

X group has objectively better water systems, quality of life (ie not being stabbed randomly etc), QED, it is is *likely* that they are transcendentally superior on our scale of beginning universe to whatever the universe is trying to “get at.” Which is a bundle of assertions in itself.

In a nutshell you can’t know anything because reality itself is rigged against you, so don’t bother being all angry next time unless you’re a legitimate hypomanic depressive like I was.

The essence of the post was that in order to appeal to the masses Christians and conservatives drift towards radical liberalism and thus lose their identity and the reason for their appeal in the first place. They lose those that would be loyal and gain nothing from those who have no concept of loyalty in the first place.

What we can know is exactly what the radical liberationist tells us he believes. He believes in seeking absolute “freedom” in a finite “field of play.” As Brett has stated, the radical liberationist IS VOLUNTARILY confined to a zero-sum game.

Some of us can “transcend” this liberal paradigm because we know this paradigm to be false. Our freedom is not relative to the radical “freedom” of the liberationist.

The most straightforward and widely accepted evidence for objective Supremacy IS Jesus Christ. Flawless. Faultless. Totally Truthful and Absolutely Good. Clearly superior to all men before, during and after.

You accept this or you reject this.

All true liberals reject this empirical evidence.

So you are either a Supremacist or you are an anti-Supremacist, i.e., an “egalitarian.” A radical autonomist seeking to LEVEL the playing field.

Mr. Stevens’ lines of thought will continue to evolve because he very much seems to seek a particular identity.

I think it wise for him to see himself most particularly as a genuine white Supremacist.

I’m not missing the point. I know exactly the point you are attempting to make. But do you know that the bigger point you are actually making is how deceptively powerful is the liberationist paradigm AND how you are WILLFULLY submitting to it in this regard?

You are infusing white Supremacy with all sorts of liberationist absurdity. You are taking the LIBERAL definition of “white Supremacy” at face value EVEN THOUGH you positively understand this definition to be totally fallacious.

Please indicate how you formulate white Supremacy equaling white degeneracy if not through purely liberationist mechanisms?

It’s a purely practical consideration.
If you want to think of yourself as a white supremacist, that’s fine. But to wear that label is to dement everyone who sees it. You are going to have consequences, and none of them are likely to be pleasant or constructive. To suggest that everybody else who you may wish to identify with, wear that label too, is rather wistful, don’t you think?

From what I’ve seen of your reasoning, so far, I’d say you have a lot to say that is worth the listening to. But display that label and who is going to listen?
If you’re hell-bent on labels, then as innocuous a label as possible seems a sensible thing. How about this one:
“New Socialist”!

Take a moment to recover.
OK?
Well why not? Why should leftists have a free hand with labels that sound good and mean something awful?
Leftists are the antithesis of social. They are the least social bunch I’ve ever encountered.
We are social. We want to build a viable, go-places society. To do that, socialization is a must. We may be the only people left who have any idea of how to socialize.
‘New Socialism’ has a lot more going for it, as a descriptor, than ‘conservatism’. And immeasurably more than ‘white supremacy’.

It’s all in the packaging. You want to sell it? Call it something that doesn’t make everybody run for cover.

@thordaddy,
I find good points in your comments.
However, if you read more posts by Brett, you’ll find he is not up to supremacy of one particular color or smell, but rather separating societies by cultures and traditions. Let the white supremaciate among the whites, blue with blues, yellow with yellow, and so on.

Brett is against the multicultural society. Mixed culture means no culture, no traditions.
There is an analogy with dogs: people don’t like mixed dogs.

Maybe, maybe not. Not everyone goes full speed ahead.
This site, as I see it, really isn’t very radical, which suits me fine, and apparently suits the regular visitors. It’s more of a how-not-to-go-crazy-in-a-crazy-world site. Tells you how. It’s up to you to save your sanity. The site offers support for those who struggle with it.
I may be wrong. Maybe it’s a well disguised KKK nexus.
But I don’t think so.

SoCal? Aha! They don’t call it la-la-land for nothing.
It can make you intense, so I hear.
In the way of your choosing.

crow’s right: I think this site does not encourage White Supremacy as its adherents tend to be filled with hatred towards other cutural/ethnic groups, and also make no distinction of quality between themselves (i.e. “white is alright”). Hence, clubhouse mentality reigns, and degeneracy sets in.

I think it’s correct to say Christianity and Conservatives (two different things, to be sure) should “stick to its guns” and differentiate itself from leftism as far as possible. As the end of the current civilization-model draws near, it’s important that things which want to “survive it” (that is, last beyond this age) become as distinct as possible. No point watering your ideas down for mass appeal, as it will most certainly not last. Even simple-minded demagogues understand its fleeting nature (nay, they understand it best).

I’m not sure if this article is related to the impending election, but, it is worth mentioning that because Republicans essentially represent a value-system which is becoming less and less popular, they are trying almost anything to achieve mass-appeal without totally “selling out”. Hence, for them to follow this article’s advice in the current setting would be to “admit defeat” and let the Democrats run the show, at least until America realizes the effects. It is unlikely that the current crop of Republican leadership is brave (or honest) enough to do this.

I’m not American, but I don’t think it would be a disaster if Democrats ruled the country and Republicans focused on reintroducing (true) conservatism on a more local-scale. I prefer this type of leadership anyway, as centralization tends to be the antithesis of culture-based leadership. Having said that, it would be naive to ignore the fact that Leftists ruling the Senate would make it difficult for local conservative leaders and communities to uphold “controversial” values.

Christianity is definitely not dead. The harsh times ahead will prove to be a renaissance of Christian conservativism. As Virgil, Plato, the Bible, and Reality show us, there will always be a true remnant after the Flood.

The whole Pussy Riot story seems like a show, probably organized by Putin himself, one of its goals to somewhat awaken the “patriotic”, “conservative”, “orthodox” spirit of the locals. Russian internet already smells of something close to pogroms and the Black Hundred.
Maybe it’s even one of the stage-managed steps to turn Europe “rightwing”, along with the Breivik Show.

It could also be somewhat personal. Pussy Riot is associated with the Mod-Art group that painted the giant phallus on the St. Petersburg drawbridge that is across from where Putin worked as a KGB officer.